Developing and implementing a security incident response plan can be time consuming and often costly - two things most organisations do not have. Without a response plan, incidents can escalate quickly and the impact can be severe. An incident response plan gives organisations a much better chance of isolating and controlling an incident in a timely and cost effective manner.

Organisations plan for success. They should also plan for worst case scenarios - especially in the case of a cyber attack or breach. For many organisations, preparedness means developing plans for disaster recovery and continuity of operations.

These are insider threats, the number one contributing factor to security incidents within enterprises. Despite what you see in hacker movies such as Blackhat, the biggest threat to organisations' networks are the people who are working for them.

Honest insiders also are targeted by malicious outsiders through using social engineering. E-mail phishing (and spear-phishing to target high-value individuals) is one of the most common types of social engineering, but examples range from simple phone calls to carefully crafted Web sites hosting malicious content.

Clearly companies, both large and small, need to act now and start putting in place robust standards and procedures to counter the cyber security threat, or face the prospect of paying drastically increased costs in regulatory fines, as well as the reputational harm to their brand.

The cybersecurity industry seems to be heading toward dire straits as data breaches grow in size and number every year, while in tandem, monitoring networks is becoming ever more challenging with internet traffic increasing at an accelerating pace.

In order to prevent online fraud, it is important for businesses to recognise where their infrastructure is most vulnerable, educate employees effectively and work with the right partners to keep up with an evolving cyber security landscape.

We hope that the Committee scrutinising the Bill are brave enough to acknowledge that Part 5 is an old fashioned approach to a very modern problem. Rather than amend Part 5, we hope they send it back from where it came and push for a rewrite so that this legislation can be meaningful rather than meaningless.

This year has seen a steady stream of security breaches, so much so that the news announcements almost seem routine. It's hardly surprising though, as our personal information is such a valuable commodity - not just for companies, but unfortunately for cybercriminals too.

The number of data breaches has continued to grow in 2015. Barely a day goes by without a company or country falling victim to a cyber-security attack. Some of the high profile attacks we've witnessed this year include Github, Uber, and Chris Froome's personal training data.

Worryingly, many people use the same password and personal details across multiple online accounts, so if their details have been compromised by one attack they could find other online accounts suffer too.

As the lines between the professional and social use of technology continue to blur, it is vital that we start to really recognise the significance of these attacks, how likely they are and how damaging they can be.

In the wake of revelations and consumer backlash against PRISM, big businesses around the world are coming under increasing pressure to give users more insight into and guarantees about how they are using their data.

In a single generation, digital collaboration has completely changed the way we communicate and work. Ubiquitous connectivity and digitized information may be the most significant global change to take place since the transportation revolution.

My concern is not about the rights of official bodies having access to this information. Rather it is the ability of these organizations to hold such vast amounts of data securely coupled with the idea that a Draft Communications Bill can be written without any real consideration around the practicalities of its implementation.